I filed a writ about ADA accommodations for neurodivergent people and equal access to the courts.
This was not my first.
It was my fourth writ of mandate.
I also filed a letter asking that any justice step down if there was even the appearance of bias.
That did not happen.
My writ was denied by Justice Mary Greenwood. I learned that yesterday. I am still within the 10-day window to seek further review in the California Supreme Court. I am writing this in real time, while still inside the very system I am questioning.
This is a domestic violence case. I was granted a permanent restraining order, yet I have received zero dollars from the community estate. My abuser was in arrears 16 out of 24 months. The court refused to calculate my back support. My support was reduced to almost nothing. I was left carrying debt I should not have had to bear.
That is not justice.
After four writs of mandate, the question is no longer just whether relief will be granted.
The question is whether meaningful review is even possible.
This is why I am raising the issue of appearance of bias.
Through publicly available sources and my own documentation, I identified overlapping professional relationships within the same Santa Clara County legal community connected to my case.
Justice Mary Greenwood serves on the Sixth District Court of Appeal and previously worked within the Santa Clara County legal system.
Judge Jessica Delgado has publicly said that Mary Greenwood influenced her path to the bench.
Judge Charles Adams worked under Judge Edward J. Davila before becoming a judge.
Judge Edward J. Davila is a federal district judge — and Justice Mary Greenwood’s husband.
Judge Julie Emede is the presiding judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court. I wrote to her repeatedly regarding bias, ADA accommodation denials, and misconduct. I received no response.
My trial judge was Micael Estremera, who presided over my case for approximately two and a half years, struck multiple disqualification motions, and only recused after that period.
This is not theoretical.
I obtained documentation from the William A. Ingram Inn showing overlapping participation by multiple individuals connected to my case — including Mary Greenwood, Jessica Delgado, Charles Adams, Micael Estremera, Edward Davila, and Jennifer Estremera — in the same legal organization during the same program year.
Jennifer Estremera appears in the same group listing as Judge Jessica Delgado and Justice Mary Greenwood.
These are not random names.
This is a connected judicial network.
And the overlap goes directly into my case:
- Judge Jessica Delgado is tied to the electronic signature I have formally challenged
- Judge Jessica Delgado also assigned my current judge, Cristina Garcia-Sen, after Department 77 recused
- My records and metadata requests have been denied for nearly a year
- Presiding Judge Julie Emede did not respond to repeated written complaints
- Judge Micael Estremera controlled my case for years while striking my challenges
So I am asking plainly:
When the same group of judges and legal actors appear together through mentorship relationships, marriage, shared organizations, and repeated professional overlap — while a domestic violence survivor is denied support, denied accommodations, denied records, and denied meaningful review — what is the public supposed to think?
Because from where I stand, it looks like a system protecting itself.
And when judges control the rulings, the records, the evidence, the accommodations, and the ability to challenge bias — including at the appellate level — they do not just control the process.
They control the outcome.
This is not just my case.
This is a public trust crisis.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”
is a famous maxim widely attributed to 18th-century philosopher-statesman Edmund Burke. It highlights that apathy, silence, and inaction by moral individuals empower injustice, corruption, and oppression to thrive. It argues that inactivity is not a neutral stance, but rather an active support of wrongdoing. How does this square with the code of ethics to which these legal professionals swear?